On 8:21pm, quoth Emmanuel Seyman: =>On Fri, Apr 25, 2003 at 11:08:07AM -0400, Steven W. Orr wrote: =>> =>> My ISP also supplies an NNTP server as well. Is there some special reason =>> that I should use that too even if I want to use another server? The => =>Yup. =>Your ISP's NNTP server is the closest one there is to you (note that I'm =>speaking from a topological viewpoint, not a geographical one). Using =>any other will very probably involve one which is further away from you =>and therefore have a worse/longer connection than your ISP's. Now we're getting somewhere. My particular ISP does not supply me with an entire hierarchy of newsgroups that my for-pay NNTP server does. Still think I'm making a bad choice? =>> to non-subscribers. What exactly are we trying to prove here? Clearly the =>> decision to use a *bad* RBL is done by a person who doesn't understand =>> that this is a *bad* policy. => =>Apparently, you appear to know what RBL Red Hat is using. Could you share =>this information with us? I, for one, would be very interested in this. There's no mystery here. Clearly (according to their own message, they are blocking on a range of addresses that are not known to be spammers. A possible solution to their problem is to segregate out a seperate server for mailinglists from the rest of the mail used by the company. Clearly everyone agrees that the lists themselves only allow mail from subscribers, so no RBLs are needed for that (possible) subdomain. => =>> I live in an area (like *most* people) who have exactly one choice for =>> their ISP. I (and many of my friends) prefer to use my ISP for supplying =>> bandwidth and nameserver resolution, and to not use them for anything else =>> if I can help it. => =>Then just configure your ISP's SMTP server as failover relay. =>That way, it will be used only if your server failed to deliver the message. Failover has to do with reception, not transmission. See the MX record for syslang.net. I'm primary and my DNS provider is secondary. => =>> choose the wrong RBLs. Selecting an RBL that wipes out an entire set of =>> ranges is different from selecting an RBL that targets specific spammers. => =>Not always. While I'm not a big of RBLs, I find using DULs completely acceptable. => =>> Red Hat has chosen a bad RBL. => =>Their choice, their decision. => =>Emmanuel I still want to try and make it better. Hope you're not too badly offended. -- -Time flies like the wind. Fruit flies like a banana. Stranger things have - -happened but none stranger than this. Does your driver's license say Organ -Donor?Black holes are where God divided by zero. Listen to me! We are all- -individuals! What if this weren't a hypothetical question? steveo at syslang.net
